Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

World Shoot Team Selection


SmittyFL

Recommended Posts

....

Both systems seem to have pitfalls. It might be better to have a two level approach where each Area holds a qualifier and the top finishers from each are involved in a shoot off at the Nationals and then after an interview the final selections area made. And yes, we still need some oversight so that the US team not only has the power to win, but the personality to be winners in the PR game as well as on the range. We don't need sore losers OR sore winners representing the US.

So perhaps some hybrid system would be best?

Jim

I'd vote for Jim's idea.

Another possibility , instead of area qualifiers, would be to invite the top 10 or 20 or whatever shooters based on their ranking out of the scores database to a National Team Trials match. To cover all bases, the team manager could be given one or two "wildcard" picks.

How do other countries do it? Are there IPSC guidelines for picking teams?

Roy

who picked up his new M&P Pro on Friday :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Something else not brought up, but if the NROI Director is the team manager, and it is John Amidon, do folks doubt JA's ability to make a solid team that will competently represent the US and USPSA?

I'm not a team member, not even close (so I guess I don't have a dog), but I too want our best qualified guys shooting for our countries team. Those guys should be the ones that show the willingness, the desire, and most importantly the ability to represent the USPSA.

On the Enos team thought, I know I would certainly donate money to a proper Enos team that was traveling to shoot and represent the US! ***But who would decide who was selected for THAT team?***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else not brought up, but if the NROI Director is the team manager, and it is John Amidon, do folks doubt JA's ability to make a solid team that will competently represent the US and USPSA?

I'm not a team member, not even close (so I guess I don't have a dog), but I too want our best qualified guys shooting for our countries team. Those guys should be the ones that show the willingness, the desire, and most importantly the ability to represent the USPSA.

On the Enos team thought, I know I would certainly donate money to a proper Enos team that was traveling to shoot and represent the US! ***But who would decide who was selected for THAT team?***

Why don't we let BE and the Moderators choose? We could do it just like we do the M.O.M. Nominate someone and they are on the team with a 2/3 vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not let the Mod team choose? LoL Is that not the same thing USPSA decided to do but with just one person making the votes? How have you solved anything? There has to be something performance/participation based in there. I am confident in the Enos Mod team making excellent choices, as I am that JA will make sound choices, neither is fair to Shannon Smith and others that deserve to be on the team if for someone they are not selected.

Shannon got on the team because he worked his ass off and earned a spot, that is the way it should be. Those that want to make the team should be held accountable on the same standards. The matches used to judge team selection should be performance in any 3 Area matches, at least one Level II match, and Nationals. So in other words, you have to shoot in at least 3 Area matches, at least 1 State or other Level II match, and you must shoot Nationals, all must be in the Division you want to be selected for. Tally the points and the best players get to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not let the Mod team choose? LoL Is that not the same thing USPSA decided to do but with just one person making the votes? How have you solved anything? There has to be something performance/participation based in there. I am confident in the Enos Mod team making excellent choices, as I am that JA will make sound choices, neither is fair to Shannon Smith and others that deserve to be on the team if for someone they are not selected.

Shannon got on the team because he worked his ass off and earned a spot, that is the way it should be. Those that want to make the team should be held accountable on the same standards. The matches used to judge team selection should be performance in any 3 Area matches, at least one Level II match, and Nationals. So in other words, you have to shoot in at least 3 Area matches, at least 1 State or other Level II match, and you must shoot Nationals, all must be in the Division you want to be selected for. Tally the points and the best players get to go.

The difference is there would be multiple people choosing instead of one so performance would be more of a factor instead of favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record I want to clarify one possible misunderstood point of my earlier post.

I do not doubt the ability of John Amidon to pick the team, nor do I think that he would pick friends over qualifications. However, we may someday have a different person in this position and while we would all like to believe that no one would ever deal in any but the most open and upfront manner, we should have a procedure in place that takes some of the guess work out of the equation and also reduces the opportunities for any shenanigans, either real or p[recieved.

Jim (Ain't likely to make any team no matter how we choose it) Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any Area directors care to post why they would make a motion, second, or vote for such a stupid idea? Or maybe try and convince me why they think it was a good idea.

Fair enough request.

It all boils down to what role the team serves with USPSA:

  1. A "contest" with a subsidized trip to the World Shoot, Team Uniform, and paid entry fee as the prize to be won
  2. A job where the team members are hired to win the team titles

If the answer is #1, a formula is the right way to go as it allows everyone to be sure the contest is "fair". The downside is that the result of the formula does not necessarily product the optimum results, particularly if an unusual occurrence such as an atypical DQ by a big name, or personal reason preventing a name shooter from making an important qualifying match, skews the statistics.

If the answer is #2, having someone like John Amidon pick the team is, in my opinion, the best way to pick the teams most likely to win.

The consensus of the board was that teams are representatives of the USPSA membership who are hired to do a job - win. We did not feel that team slots were a "prize" and, as such, the vote (in my opinion) reflects our belief that this is the best way to accomplish that mission. If the mission were "construct a fair contest to see who gets the free trip", I would have voted for a formula based selection process.

Take a look at the world of professional sports. Athlete's statistics, wins and performance are all considered by team owners and management when making picks for their teams. (And I'm sure John Amidon will be looking at match performances by prospects for the WS teams). That being said, I'm not aware of any major league sports team that publishes a formula where all the big names are told they can crank their statistics into an equationj, compare with other professionals, and know who will be offered a spot on the Red Sox, Patriots, etc.

If you disagree with the selection process (and I encourage you to contact board members, Michael Voigt, etc. if you do), I suggest you include your opinions on a couple of points:

  1. Is it because you feel that another critera will select a team more likely to win?
  2. Are you concerned wiht the lack of objective fairness and, if that is a concern, would you be willing to sacrifice a bit of quality to obtain this result?

As to "sneaking something by" - We just finished a World Shoot, and we wanted to let people know the process before the start of the 2009 season.

As to the assertion it's a "stupid idea", I ask:

  1. It it your contention this process will select a less capable team than a formula?
  2. If you want to win, how can you announce a formula that will not break down in unusual circumstances?
  3. What is your view of "Is this a contest with a prize of a job some GMs are hired to do?"

I don't think that the team should have any say in the selection process. The purpose of competition to determine the best shooters is a tried and tested method. The same method is used to determine our Olympic teams for example.

If the selection is based upon opinion rather results then this will lead inexorably toward nepotism.

The team manager does not have any relatives that even remotely qualify for the team. (look up the definition of the word)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IT is unfortunate that one individual has the responsibility to pick the members of the team. I believe that person is pick for the position of NROI by the President. There is a perception of quid quo pro! This is not a slam on John. He is, IMO, an honorable person. Quite the opposite. The board has put him in a position of potential conflict of interest.

If the team manager, who is appointed by the President, fails to put the President on the team, then the President can ask for the team manager's resignation. This is not right!

The entire concept of our sport is performance based recognization. Why do we have that as a founding principle for everything else but the selection of the WS team! It is so a person who did not have the performance to win a slot on the team can still get on the team. DO NOT SUGAR COAT THIS ISSUE. THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE DENIALABILITY OF FAIRNESS, COMPETITIVENESS, OR EARNING THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT OUR COUNTRY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Rob's explanation makes perfect sense, I - personally - do not like the accepted solution. I think a more merit based solution could have been put into effect that addressed the issues. But, the method is what it is and publishing the selection method for the 2011 World in Jan 2009 does allow those who want to make the team to know what they need to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, the method is what it is and publishing the selection method for the 2011 World in Jan 2009 does allow those who want to make the team to know what they need to do.

And just what is it that prospective team members "need to do" under the new selection method?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have got to be kidding me!! Now, this in no way impacts me (other than being a USPSA member THAT VOTES for its officials) but, don’t we bitch about this type of crap in another sport EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Well at least it will be only once every 3 for us. Designated match performance should be used to decide who goes PERIOD. Several big names, some past national and world champions, were left off the list this year for whatever reason and it was a very good year. “With the US National anthem played for every Gold medal……” Michael Voigt (Jan./Feb. 2009 Front Sight). I wish I could come up with the words to make an informed and educated argument against this policy but, with the simplicity of the answer, I am just baffled why anyone would suggest a change to a program that is proven to work. Unless,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

But, the method is what it is and publishing the selection method for the 2011 World in Jan 2009 does allow those who want to make the team to know what they need to do.

And just what is it that prospective team members "need to do" under the new selection method?

Come on, you "know".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time to post your point of view Rob. I appreciate your input.

You make a pretty good argument, I happen to think it is total crap, but it sounds good on paper I suppose.

A couple thoughts on your points:

You say it is a contest with a subsidized trip to the World Shoot. Granted the USPSA was very generous giving me $3000, three shirts and paid my entry fee. I really do sincerely appreciate their help. However I promise you it cost me much, much more above and beyond that. Trips to AZ and MI for qualifier matches counting entry, air fare, hotel, rental car, time off work, etc. Tulsa also, although we were already there for the Nationals so it was only an extra day. I probably spent half or more of the 3 grand in bullets practicing. Add in 14 days travel for the WS in lost time at work....etc., etc., etc.

You also call it a "prize". I guess it depends on your definition but to me a prize is something given or won, not earned. It is a prize now in my opinion.

I guess the main difference in our views is you view it similar to a professional sports franchise team sport like football or baseball.

I view it as an individual sport representing a team of a country like the Olympics. I suppose some of the Olympic teams are chosen but I think most are earned through qualifications. Track and field, skiing, weightlifting, etc.

I think you can gather that I disagree with the selection process. I am undoubtedly concerned with the lack of objective fairness, mainly because it isn't objective in the least! No I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a bit of quality. As I said in a previous post, those that want to go knew the process. If one wanted to be on the team, one could have easily attended the qualification matches. In fact Rob Leatham pretty much wrote the guidelines for the process we used this past WS.

I don't think I used the term "sneaking something by" but I agree with it. Anyway you said "we wanted to let people know the process before the start of the 2009 season". Why? There isn't a damn thing WE can do. Unlike previously where I knew the process and could make an effort to make the team.

For your last points -

1) Yes I think it will produce a less capable team?

2) Shit happens, whose to say an unusual circumstance won't keep Todd or Rob from making the 2011 trip?

3) I don't know what that means but already told you my thoughts on "contest" and "prize".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob Boudrie makes good points. Thanks Rob for enlightening us as to the reasoning behind this decision.

My contention is that a selection system based on performance is not a "contest" in the same way that the lotto is a "contest". It is not random picks for a prize. Those with the best performance in USPSA sanctioned matches should be those best able to represent the membership of USPSA. Giving the team manager or other designee of the board the option to add a couple of team members should cover unusual circumstances.

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to give some insight into some of the issues related to WS team selection from my time on the Board.

Board discussion (during my time) revolved around two basic concepts:

A. The team should be representative of the USPSA membership and composed of active shooters based upon demonstrated performance.

B. The team should be composed of the best shooters ["hired guns" if you will] we can get, regardless of their participation or support of USPSA.

For the 2005 and 2008 teams, the Board was split, but the majority vote selected Option A.

The selection process for 2005 involved a number of qualifying matches. When discussing the potential 2008 process, it was realized that the 2005 method was too demanding and that the method should be amended to reduce the number of matches and to add an option for the Nationals champion to take the last position on the team. The qual matches also provided for a throw-away match for a bad match performance so that a single unusual match event would allow a shooter to stay in the race. In any case, it was still Option A.

Based upon the latest BOD minutes, it appears that the balance of the BOD majority has now shifted to Option B.

I have no clue what prompted this shift. The 2008 teams (without some big name shooters who elected not to participate) still performed quite well.

The single downside to Option A (IMO) is that it requires a significant investment from potential team members to make a run for the team. That can be a difficult decision for many. It would not surprise me if some potential team members could not meet the established match schedule due to cost or time off work.

Option B does have one advantage - the ability to select members on recent performance rather than performance in early qual matches. That is particularly pertinent for the Junior team, where the top shooters are more likely to emerge in the short-term as opposed to the other teams.

Obviously, Option B does raise the issue of subjective selection. I have full faith in John's ability to select a highly competitive team and to do so in a credible manner.

HTH clarify the issue a bit.

:cheers:

Edited by George Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider. It seems to me that those members that didn't bother to shoot the qualifier matches had already made up their mind NOT to go. What make's "The Team Manager" think he will be picking the "best" shooters if he doesn't know who wants to go. Is there a list to get on???? What Division will shooter "x" prefer??

With the last WS selection system the USPSA know's who wants to represent the US at the WS.

Many of the "Hired Guns" don't shoot many Area matches at all, or the carnaval matches that happen all over the US. Most of them have a very busy training schedule and may have a hard time making some of the matches. So this may have something to do with the change. They may be the ones that the team manager wants to select......but what about the membership that has jumped through all the hoops for years and years??? Personal agenda or not this is big slap in the face of those that have tried VERY hard to make the WS team in past years.

I can see were Rob is coming from on the selection. I just find that to be a VERY arbitray way of selecting the WS team.

I just can not agree with this new system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what impact Max Michels decision to shoot an awful lot of Production Division this year will have on the selection process.

So many of us are already putting the cart in front of the horse expecting the team manager to make a poor decision. He might very well base his decision on criteria laid out in advance and pick the team based on how the 2008 team was selected. No matter who or how he chooses the team, their is going to be someone somewhere not happy about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well first, Shannon, not that I ever had a beef or the like with you, but you've just garnered a new friend and supporter. You'll be getting a call soon and money going your way for me to meet you somewhere or me flying to Florida for a class.

Second, this is TRULY pathetic. How in a "sport" where we pride ourselves on individual achievement and success are we now switching to a completely socialist and arbitrary method to select our teams. Church it up however you want to, but it's this simple. Setup 3-5 WS Qualifiers. If you want to go, you better show. Win and you're in. Done (yeah...I was going for the rhymes).

This is BEYOND disappointing and cheapens everything that this WS has done. They have earned their slots by shooting qualifier matches and that performance earned them a spot on the team. It just boggles the mind.

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....Trips to AZ and MI for qualifier matches counting entry, air fare, hotel, rental car, time off work, etc. Tulsa also, although we were already there for the Nationals so it was only an extra day. I probably spent half or more of the 3 grand in bullets practicing. Add in 14 days travel for the WS in lost time at work....etc., etc., etc.

That's the part that gets me. Should Shannon, or anyone else interested in representing our country at the WS, have to give up so much? If 1st OA at Nationals doesn't attend the required amount of "qualifier" matches, he's not eligible for team USA?

I don't know what Shannon does for a living, but normal working stiffs get 2-3 weeks vacation/year? Shannon was somehow able to devote the time required to reach his goal...amazing! (does your company have a Seattle division :goof: ) I don't know how anyone, outside industry supported shooters, would be able to sustain that level of commitment for more than 1 year.

I guess what I'm saying is the qualification process should be easier, not watered down, but easier for quality shooters to qualify. Would order of finish at Nationals do the trick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...